Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
NEW ARCHER WARNER DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4300841 · 1 · WHITE RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:05 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (a1c9146) — every figure regenerates from this named code version and data image.
Where it sits
Location as DWR records it. Faint dots are the neighbouring water; click any to open it.
Which of its rights are out of priority?
Not computable for this structure: this structure is not on the modelled flow network, so no reference gage can honestly stand in for it.
Where it sits in line
Priority 1888-10-18 — 620th most senior of the 3293 structures with decreed rights in this water districtDWR's administrative subdivision of a river basin; the unit calls are usually stated in..
Under prior appropriationColorado's rule for sharing water: first in time, first in right. Age decides, not proximity or need., everything ahead of it in this line is satisfied in full before it receives any water. Immediately ahead: JOHNSON DITCH (1902-05-19). Immediately behind: MCHATTEN RESERVOIR (1896-07-06).
Decreed rights (5)
| Admin noDWR's numeric encoding of a water right's seniority. Smaller is more senior; the integer part counts days from 1849-12-31 to the date that ranks the right. | AppropriatedWhen water was first put to beneficial use. It sets seniority unless a prior adjudication date is later. | AdjudicatedWhen the water court confirmed the right. A use decreed in 1975 was not a decreed use in 1955, however old the appropriation is. | AbsoluteA right actually put to use, as opposed to conditional -- a placeholder for a use not yet made. | ConditionalA right reserving a place in line for a use not yet made; it must be diligently pursued or it lapses. | Units | UsesWhat the court said this water may be used for -- irrigation, municipal supply, augmentation and so on. | Case |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19636.14171 | 1888-10-18 | 1903-10-08 | 2.2 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 149 |
| 24363.20574 | 1906-05-01 | 1916-09-16 | 0.3 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 219 |
| 32172.20939 | 1907-05-01 | 1942-05-26 | 2.74 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 429 |
| 39776.39406 | 1957-11-21 | 1966-11-21 | 0.69 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 632 |
| 41130.0 | 1962-08-11 | 1966-11-21 | 2.79 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 723, 724 |
Legal record & documents
9 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
CA1269, CA0624, CA0286, 10/08/1903.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA1269 | 6 | 1966-11-21 | S |
CA0624 | 1 | 1942-05-26 | S |
CA0286 | 1 | 1916-09-16 | S |
10/08/1903 | 1 | 1903-10-08 | S |
DWR's own records for this structure: net amounts · transactions & adjudication history · scanned decrees (search a case number there for the imaged document). On this site: the district's full legal picture →
Recorded use (last 15 years on record)
In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 904 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 1,303 AF — 144% of that, and 11th lowest of the 15 years with a recorded volume.
| Year | Diverted (AFA volume: one acre covered a foot deep, about 326,000 gallons -- roughly a suburban household's outdoor use for a year.) | Compared with its own record | Days recorded | Peak (cfs) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 904 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 63 | 8.8 |
| 2011 | 768 | 5th lowest of 15 · 85% of median | 50 | 9.0 |
| 2012 | 655 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 72% of median | 83 | 6.8 |
| 2013 | 920 | 9th lowest of 15 · 102% of median | 82 | 8.7 |
| 2014 | 1,818 | 14th lowest of 15 · 201% of median | 159 | 8.7 |
| 2015 | 72 | 1st lowest of 15 · 8% of median | 14 | 4.0 |
| 2016 | 327 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 36% of median | 41 | 6.3 |
| 2017 | 662 | 4th lowest of 15 · 73% of median | 60 | 6.2 |
| 2018 | 1,596 | 13th lowest of 15 · 176% of median | 132 | 9.8 |
| 2019 | 797 | 6th lowest of 15 · 88% of median | 46 | 8.9 |
| 2021 | 1,057 | 10th lowest of 15 · 117% of median | 95 | 7.0 |
| 2022 | 818 | 7th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | 125 | 9.5 |
| 2023 | 1,451 | 12th lowest of 15 · 160% of median | 127 | 9.1 |
| 2024 | 3,093 | 15th lowest of 15 · 342% of median | 187 | 12.0 |
| 2025 | 1,303 | 11th lowest of 15 · 144% of median | 164 | 4.9 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use shows no clear trend over its last 15 recorded years — which is itself worth knowing.
How good is our record of it?
Grade B (7/10 points) — the components below are the finding; the letter alone is not.
The rubric, component by component
| Check | State | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| identity | complete | name, type, and water source all on file |
| decreed rights | on file | 5 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 4839 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 37% of the irrigation seasons in 1964-2025 carry measured days |
| published-record stability | stable | no upstream revisions recorded against this structure |
Advisory reading aid on public data — not an administrative or legal conclusion, not a title opinion, and not a substitute for DWR administration or an engineer's analysis. Methodology review status is disclosed at hydrohistorian's basin pages.